Some have suggested that the immigration debate today is racist. Samuel Huntington maintains that Mexican immigrants are creating significant problems, specifically with response to assimilation. Fuentes argues that much of the debate is racist and appears under the guise of American national unity. With whom do you agree? Support your answer.

After reference to an article of 06 December 2011 in the
Los Angeles Daily News concerning Fuentes, the issue being
discussed has to do with "undocumented workers." Clearly,
there is a tremendous difference between immigrants and illegal
immigrants. Immigrants in the United States legally
contribute to the economy; in their case, the arguments of the
above post are relevant. However, illegals are another matter
entirely.

All one has to do is look at the massive economic devastation
done to the state of California by the entry of illegals to realize
that much of the debate has nothing to do with with racial bias
against Hispanics. It is economic!

It is not necessarily the case that illegal immigrants are not
making contributions. Many of them pay taxes, and in fact,
the IRS has a mechanism for just this situation. Certainly,
sales taxes get paid, and in some instances, property taxes get
paid, too. Not being a Californian, it is difficult for me to
comment on how illegal aliens in particular might have devastated
the entire economy of that state. However, given that the
entire country is suffering from economic devastation, it is hard
to see how what is really a relatively small group of people could
have brought about such consequences.

Absolutely right. And gasoline taxes.
Property tax is paid by everyone who rents, which is a majority of
the undocumented, in the form of higher rents. But also think
of the Social Security and Medicare taxes the undocumented pay, on
fake numbers, without the hope of ever seeing those benefits.
They have helped keep those two programs solvent longer than they
would be otherwise.

In addition, everyone who buys produce or stays in a hotel or
has their yard landscaped is likely to pay lower prices than they
would without a low wage undocumented work force. It's like
getting a tax break every time you take a vacation or go to the
grocery store. Some of the money they make they send to their
family back home, but they also spend most of it in our economy
immediately, and consumer spending is the primary factor behind job
creation.

It's true that the undocumented also use public services at a
higher rate than others. But economists suggest that with
what they contribute to the economy, there is a small net positive
effect to their being here. And certainly it's inaccurate to
suggest that they are the reason why California or the national
economy are in recession. We can look in the mirror on that
one.

After reference to an article of 06 December 2011 in the
Los Angeles Daily News concerning Fuentes, the issue being
discussed has to do with "undocumented workers." Clearly,
there is a tremendous difference between immigrants and illegal
immigrants. Immigrants in the United States legally
contribute to the economy; in their case, the arguments of the
above post are relevant. However, illegals are another matter
entirely.

All one has to do is look at the massive economic devastation
done to the state of California by the entry of illegals to realize
that much of the debate has nothing to do with with racial bias
against Hispanics. It is economic!

It is not necessarily the case that illegal immigrants are not
making contributions. Many of them pay taxes, and in fact,
the IRS has a mechanism for just this situation. Certainly,
sales taxes get paid, and in some instances, property taxes get
paid, too. Not being a Californian, it is difficult for me to
comment on how illegal aliens in particular might have devastated
the entire economy of that state. However, given that the
entire country is suffering from economic devastation, it is hard
to see how what is really a relatively small group of people could
have brought about such consequences.

I definitely agree more with the "salad bowl" analogy of immigration rather than the "melting pot" analogy. I feel that immigration in today's globalised world presents definite challenges and also definite opportunities. The spread of drugs and terrorism is something that governments cannot afford to be naive about, but at the same time, immigrants offer incredibly valuable skills and knowledge that certainly help countries to keep on running smoothly.

That's why I used the analogy of a "salad bowl" in my earlier posting. I like the comparison - a green salad has lots of different ingredients all mixed together, but each ingredient retains its individual characteristics and flavor - romaine, carrots, sprouts, spinach, cheese, croutons, whatever - even as they all mix to create a wonderful effect!

America should be a place where people can come together under the name of the United States without losing their cultural or ethnic identity. The passe "melting pot" ideology was wrong. The idea of the melting pot was that all people would take on the identity of the majority. Instead, with today's America being so diverse, multiculturalism is more identifiable for those coming into the US.

After reference to an article of 06 December 2011 in the Los Angeles Daily News concerning Fuentes, the issue being discussed has to do with "undocumented workers." Clearly, there is a tremendous difference between immigrants and illegal immigrants. Immigrants in the United States legally contribute to the economy; in their case, the arguments of the above post are relevant. However, illegals are another matter entirely.

All one has to do is look at the massive economic devastation done to the state of California by the entry of illegals to realize that much of the debate has nothing to do with with racial bias against Hispanics. It is economic!

The "debate" (and I think that term gets used too loosely most times) is at least multi-faceted. What we tend to hear in these national controversies are the very loudest, most controversial voices. The media plays up shocking comments which then provoke shocking counter-comments, etc.

But I do believe that racism is a major factor among many anti-immigration groups. They tend to contain members of the older generation who remember a time when publicly racial comments were not shocking at all, but typical, and we were a segregated nation. Plus, our country has a long history of cultural and xenophobic backlashes against immigrant groups, almost all of them based on widespread racist beliefs. Lastly, there are so many examples of statements by these groups and individuals that espouse and repeat things as fact that are really just stubborn myths about immigration.

And for the record, the latest waves of Latinos entering the country since the 1980s are assimilating faster than any immigrant wave in US history--in two generations instead of three.

I tend to agree with point 2 and Fuentes. The beauty of America is that all people from all different backgrounds could come together with their cultural identity. To say that people need to shed their cultural identity to embrace a "neutral American" one is disingenuous, because no culture is neutral. Moreover, when it comes to Mexicans, most of them I have met are trying awfully hard to be a part of society. There is a lot of fear mongering and I suspect that it will continue.

I think the last paragraph of the previous post very accurately summarizes the situation, now and throughout the history of the United States. As a nation that has gained a large portion of its population through immigration, we have historically had periods of time when large numbers of people have come to our country from other parts of the world; the historic reaction has always been discrimination toward these new groups until they have become assimilated and integrated into the society.

Some of it is fear of those already in residence that the newcomers are going to take away jobs/housing/health care/school desks/name your concern. Some of it is discomfort, if not outright fear, of the unknown - including people who look or sound different or who have different customs or ideas. Some of it is the human equivalent of NIMB - newcomers are OK but "not in my backyard" - let them settle somewhere else instead of in my neighborhood/town/state.

As with the Irish, the Germans, the Poles, and all the other groups that have immigrated to this salad bowl country of ours, with enough time and contact, they will become another wonderful part of the mixture - adding to the overall richness of our culture while retaining unique characteristics that make them special.

I tend more to agree with Fuentes, but of course I am biased given that my father is an immigrant and I don't look like I'm even half-white.

My reasoning for this is based largely on my experience teaching in a heavily Mexican high school. Of course, we have problems based on poverty and on the fact that we have many recent immigrants. On the other hand, assimilation is so obvious in our town. We have Hispanics whose English is bad enough that they are taking ESL and yet they are doing all-American things like playing football or being cheerleaders. We have Hispanics named Jorge and pronouncing their names "George." We have intermarriage all over the place. I just don't see a lack of assimilation.

I think that claims that Hispanics don't want to assimilate are based partly on race and partly on simple fear. This is a fear that "natives" have had going back to the 1890s and beyond when people worried about Italians and Jews. It's a natural thing that happens when immigration is high and the immigrants are in some way identifiably different.